Hannity Confirms Dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Same old talking points.

The literal legal definitions of contributions or donations are not "talking points".

Odd that you seem to dismiss factual reality as talking points when those facts don't support you rhetorical inventions.

Y0u have provided no legal definition of the term contribute.

You have given your opinion.

LOL

Cuz you are incapable of discerning between paid-for-services and donations and contributions?

I am not going to argue the earth is round with you. It is either troll or malfunction on your behalf.

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: soberbacchus

Russia doesn't have a Crown prosecutor.

The British publicist who set up a meeting between senior Trump campaign figures and a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer says he exaggerated an email promising damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Right...

He is not belief worthy...Investigation warranted.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Same old talking points.

The literal legal definitions of contributions or donations are not "talking points".

Odd that you seem to dismiss factual reality as talking points when those facts don't support you rhetorical inventions.

Y0u have provided no legal definition of the term contribute.

You have given your opinion.

LOL

Cuz you are incapable of discerning between paid-for-services and donations and contributions?

I am not going to argue the earth is round with you. It is either troll or malfunction on your behalf.

Since you missed it I will post it again.

11CFR 300 places "contribution" in the same legal category as "donations". The definitions defined in 11 cfr 300 are directly referenced as the same meanings for the FEC foreign national sections of FEC laws.

referenced here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Grambler

11CFR 300 places "contribution" in the same legal category as "donations". the definitions defined in 11 cfr 300 are directly referenced as the same meanings for the FEC foreign national sections of FEC laws.

One is services without pay "contribution"
The other payment without return "Donations"

Transactions involving services for money or vice versa are not either.

Damn...You guys got me to keep explaining the whole earth is round thing again.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Same old talking points.

The literal legal definitions of contributions or donations are not "talking points".

Odd that you seem to dismiss factual reality as talking points when those facts don't support you rhetorical inventions.

Y0u have provided no legal definition of the term contribute.

You have given your opinion.

LOL

Cuz you are incapable of discerning between paid-for-services and donations and contributions?

I am not going to argue the earth is round with you. It is either troll or malfunction on your behalf.

Since you missed it I will post it again.

11CFR 300 places "contribution" in the same legal category as "donations". The definitions defined in 11 cfr 300 are directly referenced as the same meanings for the FEC foreign national sections of FEC laws.

referenced here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are supporting your crazy interpretation/claims in this post by citing your crazy claims/interpretations in your last post..

Any rational reader understands the meaning of contributions and donations in this context.

a reply to: soberbacchus

And i dont care what a rational reader thinks since we use federal definitions as defined by law (linked but you apparently didnt read) and for very good reason. It prevents situations where a person, maybe a casual reader, may have a differing interpretation of what a word means, like donations or contributions. If you read further you would notice both, contributions and donations, are disallowed under federal law by foreign nationals in federal elections. It also uses the term "or anything of value".

What part is confusing you?

a reply to: soberbacchus

Again, your interpretation says getting advice from a foreign national on how to best run a computer would be illegal.

Aside from that insanity.

Your opinions do not seem to overwhelm the avctual law, no matter how strongly you hold them.

Lets look at just one angle.

The very same law you cited says this about disbursements.

(d)Disbursement. Disbursement means any purchase or payment made by:

(1) A political committee; or

(2) Any other person, including an organization that is not a political committee, that is subject to the Act.

And how is disbursement definied?

(d)Disbursement. Disbursement means any purchase or payment made by:

(1) A political committee; or

(2) Any other person, including an organization that is not a political committee, that is subject to the Act.

www.law.cornell.edu...

So a purchase of this thing of value indirectly from a foreign national would be against the law.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Damn...You guys got me to keep explaining the whole earth is round thing again.

Okay, so what you're doing here is called an ad hominem argument. This is an argument which attacks the person, rather than the argument being made. In this case you are implying that we (those of us who are arguing with you) believe the earth to be flat, thus any argument we make must be similarly nonsensical. This is a mistake. I personally do not believe the Earth to be flat, though I cannot speak for everyone. In any case such a belief would have no bearing on the topic of discussion.

The alternative is that you regard the current topic of discussion to have as certain an outcome as the flat vs/ round Earth argument. This is also a mistake. In order to be a well-rounded(pun intended) individual you should fairly consider opposing points of view. To not would brand you as dogmatic and narrow-minded. Cheap one-liners such as the quoted do nothing for your credibility, nor your rationality.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Why are people still talking about hypothetical situations? Who knows if Don Jr. would have given a couple bucks to the Russian lady.

Not that any sane judge would consider evidence of a crime to be a bribe, especially since there is no particular reason it would be more valuable in Trumps hands than anyone else in the world.

It was a set up though, and possibly used in conjunction with the Steele dossier to obtain the fraudulent FISA warrant.

a reply to: ItsNotIronic

Kinda makes you wonder who Goldstone's actual client was, doesn't it?

“If I’m guilty of anything, and I hate the word guilty, it’s hyping the message and going the extra mile for my clients. Using hot-button language to puff up the information I had been given,” he said.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

originally posted by: soberbacchus
One is services without pay "contribution"
The other payment without return "Donations"

Transactions involving services for money or vice versa are not either.

I think this is why the truthfulness of the dossier is so important. Anything untrue is a contribution....perhaps even a donation of creative services.

Non-factual information, lies, and non-credible information don't qualify as 'opposition research' because it's not actually information about her opposition.

OTOH...if the Hillary campaign specifically agreed to pay for a dossier that was padded with false information about Trump, that raises other questions. For example, why didn't anyone speak up about knowing there was false information in the dossier because they paid to have it included.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

So by you interpretation, if Don Jr offered to pay the Russian lawyer for dirt, it's ok.

It just getting it for free that is a problem.

Legally he would be in better shape if it was an on-the-books services transaction for payment rather than trading US policy.

One is employing a questionable contractor that he could claim he did not know was a Russian agent, the other is "treason" as Bannon put it.

One is paid for campaign services the other is accepting contributions from foreign nationals.

It just getting it for free that is a problem.

Right. That is what donations and contributions mean.

It is why politicians travelling abroad don't get arrested for paying a Moscow hotel bill, but will get arrested if they accept gifts, services for free and other stuff.

Honestly, that is pretty basic. Maybe research earned revenue vs. contribution.

This is a flat earth discussion where you seem to have invented a new definition for contribution or donation.

Wow! Thanks for the good laugh. You are suggesting that information from a foreign agent would be a contribution or donation (keep in mind it was unsolicited)? Yet, you suggest that had it been solicited it would be a non issue? Now the whole flat earth theory makes sense, all we needed was two dimensional thinking

a reply to: Grambler

This entire Russia meddling/collusion issue just appears so machinated as a distraction for the public.

I know there will be someone to come along and accuse me of 'whataboutism,' but since we are discussing laws and justice...arguments about the equal treatment of people are important.

In July 2008, Obama wanted to give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate. The idea was rejected, however, by Angela Merkel. Back then the news reported this:

Berlin is, however, the chosen venue for the trip’s main setpiece public address – a decision based largely on the city’s iconic status as the backdrop for famous speeches by US presidents over the decades. Most famously, John F Kennedy caused local rapture in 1963 by pronouncing: “Ich bin ein Berliner”. In 1987, Ronald Reagan made a similarly celebrated speech in the same city, urging Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”.

Obama was due to address a huge, open-air crowd before the Victory Column war monument in the city’s Tiergarten. Crowds began gathering in Berlin hours before his speech, many having to queue to get into the plaza. Speaking to reporters ahead of his arrival in the German capital, Obama had been at pains to stress he was merely “a citizen” and not – at least not yet – a president.

However, the presidential imagery has clearly not been lost on Obama’s campaign staff, who originally hoped he could speak at the Brandenburg Gate, as did Reagan, as well as Bill Clinton, who declared “Berlin is free” in 2004. Kennedy also visited the gate when in Berlin, although he made his speech elsewhere. Obama, however, had to settle for the 69-metre Victory Column after the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, objected, saying the Brandenburg Gate was reserved for presidents, not candidates.

Link


How on earth is that NOT a solicitation for a thing of value from a foreign national in connection with a federal election?

The historical value of speaking at the Brandenburg Gate was widely reported by the media, at the time. The value of ANY venue that can accommodate 200,000 people is obvious, no matter where it is.

However, Merkel's approval for Obama to speak at the Brandenburg Gate was solicited. Although she rejected the request, the Obama campaign did, in fact, solicit her for approval of the use of that venue for a campaign speech. And he ultimately spoke at another Berlin monument that Merkel approved of!

That speech was (nauseatingly) covered by the media to the benefit of Obama's presidential campaign.

I guess I just don't get any of this controversy and I don't think I ever will. And, I'm sure this is not the only example I could find to make this point: Why are we being so selective about the application of the law?

Apply it to everyone or no one at all.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Same old talking points.

The literal legal definitions of contributions or donations are not "talking points".

Odd that you seem to dismiss factual reality as talking points when those facts don't support you rhetorical inventions.

Y0u have provided no legal definition of the term contribute.

You have given your opinion.

LOL

Cuz you are incapable of discerning between paid-for-services and donations and contributions?

I am not going to argue the earth is round with you. It is either troll or malfunction on your behalf.

Since you missed it I will post it again.

11CFR 300 places "contribution" in the same legal category as "donations". The definitions defined in 11 cfr 300 are directly referenced as the same meanings for the FEC foreign national sections of FEC laws.

referenced here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are supporting your crazy interpretation/claims in this post by citing your crazy claims/interpretations in your last post..

Any rational reader understands the meaning of contributions and donations in this context.

Rational readers aren't the ones to be concerned with in this context. The law is interpreted by judges who aren't always altogether rational or unbiased.

In order to really understand this, may I suggest you enter a political campaign and have to live under these laws and vague definitions for a year of your life.
It certainly isn't as cut and dry as some of the folks posting here seem to think. I've literally watched dozens of these situations play out, each with a different interpretation of the laws.

In all honesty, this dossier never had any legs. I'm certainly no fan of Trump but with even my limited knowledge of the guy, the dossier was just laughable. Trump's fear of germs is hardly a hidden thing---and yet any number of news organizations saw no problem with putting out the Golden Showers story. It just makes my head spin. I'm actually beginning to believe that this whole thing did come out of some mother's basement. It wouldn't be the first time these "oh, so smart" folks got snookered.

How long is the list of folks going to jail for this? Who would a complete list include? When should we have the buses ready?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Grambler

This entire Russia meddling/collusion issue just appears so machinated as a distraction for the public.

I know there will be someone to come along and accuse me of 'whataboutism,' but since we are discussing laws and justice...arguments about the equal treatment of people are important.

In July 2008, Obama wanted to give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate. The idea was rejected, however, by Angela Merkel. Back then the news reported this:

Berlin is, however, the chosen venue for the trip’s main setpiece public address – a decision based largely on the city’s iconic status as the backdrop for famous speeches by US presidents over the decades. Most famously, John F Kennedy caused local rapture in 1963 by pronouncing: “Ich bin ein Berliner”. In 1987, Ronald Reagan made a similarly celebrated speech in the same city, urging Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”.

Obama was due to address a huge, open-air crowd before the Victory Column war monument in the city’s Tiergarten. Crowds began gathering in Berlin hours before his speech, many having to queue to get into the plaza. Speaking to reporters ahead of his arrival in the German capital, Obama had been at pains to stress he was merely “a citizen” and not – at least not yet – a president.

However, the presidential imagery has clearly not been lost on Obama’s campaign staff, who originally hoped he could speak at the Brandenburg Gate, as did Reagan, as well as Bill Clinton, who declared “Berlin is free” in 2004. Kennedy also visited the gate when in Berlin, although he made his speech elsewhere. Obama, however, had to settle for the 69-metre Victory Column after the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, objected, saying the Brandenburg Gate was reserved for presidents, not candidates.

Link


How on earth is that NOT a solicitation for a thing of value from a foreign national in connection with a federal election?

The historical value of speaking at the Brandenburg Gate was widely reported by the media, at the time. The value of ANY venue that can accommodate 200,000 people is obvious, no matter where it is.

However, Merkel's approval for Obama to speak at the Brandenburg Gate was solicited. Although she rejected the request, the Obama campaign did, in fact, solicit her for approval of the use of that venue for a campaign speech. And he ultimately spoke at another Berlin monument that Merkel approved of!

That speech was (nauseatingly) covered by the media to the benefit of Obama's presidential campaign.

I guess I just don't get any of this controversy and I don't think I ever will. And, I'm sure this is not the only example I could find to make this point: Why are we being so selective about the application of the law?

Apply it to everyone or no one at all.

Wow.

The lengths some will go.

If the Russian-Meddling-Collusion thing is just "nothing" but a distraction, that' s really weird. What with Trump being involved with so many Russians, Manafort campaign manager, Flynn and his connections, Page, Tillerson, all common denominator is Russia. His son's saying that their business skews Russian, Trump saying he has no business in Russia.

The amail that was so exciting that everyone in the campaign - except, so we're to believe, Donald - promising dirt.

Trump trying to lift Russian sanctions in the first week.

Trump thanking Putin for kicking out half our embassy.

Here's my question, if this was all to gain an advantage by Hillary over Trump, why was none of it released?

Feel free to believe Hannity, I'd prefer to believe the ex head of the MI-6 Russian desk.

You guys will deny the nose on your face, but it's sure fun to see you guys try to hide Pres. Snowflake

Oh, and I don't think that the opportunity to give a speech in any nation is the equivalent to having another country run ads against your opponent: www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: DarkSmiles
How long is the list of folks going to jail for this? Who would a complete list include? When should we have the buses ready?

Isn't this, essentially, what most people want to know?

a reply to: Scrubdog

You could find just as many Trump connections to any country playing the six degrees of Kevin Bacon game.

Try throwing some cash around in Russia. You would find that every hotel maid with a pulse comes up with a story about Trump.

a reply to: Scrubdog

And yet here we are. A year down the road, and the only crimes uncovered are from prior to the individuals time with Trump, mostly dating to their time with Hillary

So while your bias can make you believe things that sound truthy, they have yet to be shown as true.

a reply to: Scrubdog

Well, I am not actually a Trump supporter. I wasn't an Obama supporter either, obviously.

However, I do support the 14th Amendment and the equal justice for all that it protects.

I see obvious inequality. I spoke up about it because it bugs me.

If that's some "great lengths" to you...I guess I have to thank you. I feel like I should be going to much greater lengths to speak on my support for equal justice than just raising the issue on an online forum.


***

ETA: (hit post too soon)

originally posted by: Scrubdog
Feel free to believe Hannity, I'd prefer to believe the ex head of the MI-6 Russian desk.

You guys will deny the nose on your face, but it's sure fun to see you guys try to hide Pres. Snowflake

Oh, and I don't think that the opportunity to give a speech in any nation is the equivalent to having another country run ads against your opponent: www.nytimes.com...

Also, I am not sure if I believe Hannity or not...or anything that's been reported. Like I said, I feel like it's all machinated at the public's expense.

And I do recall Obama's Berlin speech having a very, very profound effect on his campaign -- arguably far more valuable to Obama's campaign than Russia ads on Facebook. And imagine if he was actually granted permission by Merkel to speak at the Brandenburg Gate!?! That's what he solicited from Angela Merkel.

And I also remember the internet being overrun, during the 2008 election, with what I called O-bots. It was apparent to a lot of people that there were probably some paid supporters and bots online. No one ever investigated it though so there's no way to know where it was coming from.